CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
References
Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ8743098
Regular
Feb 07, 2017

REGULO HERNANDEZ AGUILAR vs. PRIMA PIZZA d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to overturn an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster, arguing it was intended to harass. However, the WCAB found the order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for removal.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ Orderdepositionclaims adjusterPetition to QuashPetition to Compelfinal orderinterlocutory order
References
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ2558516 (VNO 0339174) ADJ4123268 (VNO 0339173)
Regular
May 20, 2015

PAULA RANGEL vs. PALOS VERDES DEVELOPERS, CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order compelling the service of medical-legal reports, not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB noted that the defendant's arguments regarding procedural due process were unfounded as they had a hearing and opportunity to be heard. Finally, the Board admonished the defendant's representative for misstating facts, citing outdated authority, and filing improper petitions, warning of future sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling ServiceMedical/Legal ReportingLien ClaimantProcedural Due ProcessInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10832179
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

ELIZABETH OLIVAS MONTOYA vs. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling her deposition. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the deposition order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This decision was based on the applicant's inability to drive due to injury and subsequent complications with her attorney's health, coupled with the procedural issue of not allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The Board hopes the parties can resolve the deposition dispute amicably at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at DepositionWCJCumulative TraumaInstructional AssistantPetition to Compel DepositionOpportunity to be heardKnee Injury
References
Case No. ADJ800698 (SRO 0128141)
Regular
Apr 25, 2012

Kevin Elliott vs. Fire Protection Unlimited, Specialty Risk

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling service of medical reports was not a final order. However, construing the petition as a request for removal, the Board granted it, finding a potential untimeliness issue with the lien claimant's lien under Labor Code section 4903.5. The Board rescinded the original order and returned the case to the trial level for a lien conference to determine the existence, filing date, and validity of the lien.

Labor Code section 4903.5Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder to Compel Service of Medical Reportslien claimantRS MedicalOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseuntimely filed lienlaches defenselien conference
References
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685) ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592) ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order setting a mandatory settlement conference and deferring the request to set aside a prior order compelling medical examination attendance. The Board found that the issue of setting aside the two-year-old compelling order must be resolved before a settlement conference. Applicant must comply with the order or show good cause for setting it aside, and defendant may seek an order under Labor Code section 4053. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, starting with a status conference.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJDiscoverySet Aside OrderLabor Code section 4053Rescind OrderTrial Level
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,663 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational